PT-2025-000379 - [2025] EWHC 2628 (Ch)

The following paragraphs contain a summary of the background to this application to put the issues into context. It goes without saying that nothing in these paragraphs is intended to be a conclusive finding of fact where such matters are in dispute between the parties and will need to be determined at trial.

DH has a leasehold interest in the Hangar.

Jet Support and Charter are companies in common (albeit not identical) ownership and operate their business from the east half of the Hangar which is a very substantial diamond-shaped aircraft hangar and associated offices, stores, and engineering spaces. I was shown an invoice dated 1 January 2025 under which DH invoiced Jet Support in advance for (i) £150,462.50 being one quarter of “Annual Rent” (the total annual rent being £601,850) and (ii) £30,050.72 being one quarter of “Annual Service Charge” (the total annual amount of which was £120,202.88). I was also shown an invoice dated 1 February 2025 under which DH invoiced Jet Support for £30,000 for “Gas and Electricity”, that sum being the monthly apportionment of the “Annual Utilities Charge” of £360,000.

Unfortunately, and notwithstanding the very substantial sums invoiced by DH and paid by Jet Support, there is a substantial dispute between the parties as to the basis on which the Claimants (or either of them) occupy the Hangar because there is no single documented agreement which deals with this. Instead there is:

Based on these documents, the Claimants advance a series of alternative cases as to the nature of their occupation of the Hangar ranging from their primary case – that they hold an equitable lease in the same terms as the draft Lease referred to in paragraph 5.3 above – down to a tenancy on the terms of the HPHA and/or the HSC. The Claimants then say that, whatever the basis of their occupation, they are owed obligations by the Defendants to keep the roof of the Hangar in good repair and to provide heating to the Hangar.

For their part, the Defendants say that neither LJC nor Charter has any interest in the Hangar, and that Jet Support occupies the east half of the Hangar as a licensee of DH from month to month or as a tenant at will. They also deny that they owe the repairing and heating obligations relied on by the Claimants but accept that it would be an implied term of the licence or tenancy at will on which they rely that the east half of the Hangar will be reasonably fit for purpose and that such a term “in principle extends to the repair of the roof and the provision of adequate heating” (Defence, ¶36.2-36.3). In his oral submissions, Mr Grundy KC for the Defendants, submitted that this implied term could not extend as far as ensuring that the roof did not leak.

The roof of the Hangar and of the associated buildings is substantial in size. I have seen one estimate that the Hangar roof is some 10,000 square metres with a further 2,000 square metres for the roof covering the office/plant block and 4,000 square metres for the lower rooves covering the engineering/stores areas and a covered roadway.

As with the nature of the occupation of the Hangar, there is a substantial dispute between the parties about the state of the roof and the steps which have been taken to repair it over the years. Moreover, identifying the current state of the roof has been complicated by the various further rounds of evidence which have been filed since the Application was issued. The evidence is summarised below.

The Claimants’ principal evidence when the Application was issued came from Mr Greenwood in an expert report dated 25 February 2025. I return below to the question of whether Mr Greenwood is suitable to act as an expert (as the Defendants say that his report should not be admitted) but his report contained a substantial amount of material which is factual in nature. His report included the following:

In addition to a witness statement from Gemma Staples, a partner at the Claimants’ solicitors, the Claimants also relied at that stage on:

The response from the Defendants came on 3 June 2025 from Ms Covaci (Chief Executive of DH) and Mr Simmonds (the director of Elevation Roofing Limited (“Elevation”)).

The Claimants responded to this evidence as follows:

The final round of evidence was the second witness statement of Ms Covaci dated 16 September 2025. Ms Covaci’s evidence was that:

It will be immediately apparent from the description set out above that, while there is common ground about some of the issues with the roof (such as the damage from Storm Darragh), there is not just a very real dispute about the state of the roof from time to time but that the position at any moment depends on whether new leaks have occurred or whether the next set of repairs (or at least works on the roof) have taken place. This back and forth in the evidence reflects the fact that, although the Application was certified as urgent back in April 2025, it was not heard until some five months later, in September 2025. I consider the significance of this passage of time and the developments in the evidence further in section IV below.

The factual position in relation to the heating of the Hangar is more straightforward than for the roof. It appears that, until October 2024, the Hangar was heated by means of a gas-powered heating system (which the Defendants say was operated only for part of the year) but the gas supply was then cut off due to a dispute between the DH and its gas supplier. DH says that it has since provided alternative heating which is sufficient.

The evidence from the Claimants, principally through the first witness statements of Mr Matthews and Ms Swetman referred to above, disputes the adequacy of the heaters provided by DH and included details of:

Although the warm summer had alleviated the temperature issues in the Hangar, the evidence also explained that the Claimants were concerned that, as autumn/winter approaches, the same issues with the lack of adequate heating would begin to occur again.

The most recent evidence from the Defendants, in the second witness statement of Ms Covaci referred to above, was that some progress has been made in negotiations between DH and the supplier such that the gas supply (and therefore the gas-powered heating) may be restored in the relatively near future although this will depend not just on DH but also the supplier.

Aside from the factual position in relation to the state of the roof and the heating, the other factual matter which occupied a material part of the hearing related to Jet Support’s accreditation or certification by the European Air Safety Agency (“EASA”).

The Claimants’ case is that:

The Defendants were critical of the nature and impact of the evidence relied upon by Jet Support on this point. They said that: (i) only a very short extract of the audit report had been provided; (ii) the extract which was available related only to one specific activity – painting - which was, Ms Covaci said, not permitted in the Hangar in any event; (iii) the report made no mention of leaking from the roof and, in any event, Jet Support had been accredited throughout the period since 2019 when complaints had been made about the roof; (iv) the only reference in the report to humidity related to the paint tent which was a local environment created by the Claimants; and (v) the report suggested the existence of additional temperature data which had not been provided by the Claimants.